What Ever Happened To Joe Ragosta And George Graves
John
hophead
nos...@nospam.com says...
> Anybody know if those two guys are still alive?
Don't know about Rogosta, but GG is alive and well.
John
I wish he would drop in again. I use to enjoy reading and debating with
him.
Steve Carroll
> hophead wrote:
> > In article <-cidnQoWpISOgQrXnZ2dnUVZ_qKdn...@giganews.com>,
> > nos...@nospam.com says...
> >> Anybody know if those two guys are still alive?
>
> > Don't know about Rogosta, but GG is alive and well.
>
> I wish he would drop in again. I use to enjoy reading and debating with
> him.
He's in... he's been in.
John
What name has he been posting under? I see no poster of his intelligence
around here so I find it very hard to believe he is around.
Steve Carroll
There are lots of things you don't "see", John... even when they are
right under your nose;)
John
Yes it is hard to "SEE" when one is not suffering from delusions Steve.
Steve Carroll
It's not a "delusion" that a person calling himself Snit... who may
be impersonating a Yavapai College instructor named Michael Glasser,
has leveled a false charge of adultery against me in a public forum.
It's not a "delusion" that this same person has forged my (and others)
posting ID and admitted to having done so while he also claims it's no
big deal. It's not a "delusion" that this Snit person has created
various webpages designed to try and humiliate male and female posters
of csma. It's not a "delusion" that this Snit character has made
public emails there were private between he and another csma poster
without that person's consent. It's not a "delusion" that "Snit" has
managed to align entire newsgroups full of people against him.
Maybe it's time for you to wake up from your "delusion", John.
John
It is NOT a delusion that you live in a world of delusions Steve. Just
sick.
Snit
1:47 PM:
...
> It is NOT a delusion that you live in a world of delusions Steve. Just
> sick.
The fact: he lost some Usenet debates so he tracked me down to my place of
employment, insisted I am an imposter to the person he found out I am (does
that make sense to anyone but Steve?) and is now working to adversely affect
me at my place of employment.
Steve cannot defend his actions - so he repeats accusations against me. Of
course, Steve knows I would never sink to his level, so he does not fear
retaliation.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
Which thing that I posted above do you think is a "delusion"? Let's
take a look at the first item I mentioned about adultery...
Written by Snit 6 days ago:
"Steve Carroll has been obsessed with me since 2004... ever since an
incident
so bothersome to him he refused to talk about it. Ask him about his
girlfriend dumping him... watch him squirm. He will deny it, though
he used
to brag about his 69 mile "road trips" to her house."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5c45c5ec67aecb72?hl=en&dmode=source
That look like a "delusion" to you John? I'm married to the same women
I've lived with for many years. I have no "girlfriend"... I made no
"road trips". Snit's false accusation of adultery is the "delusion"
here.
What's wrong, John... can't quite scrape that egg off your face? Would
you like Snit to continue to make you look like a fool for backing him
up?
John
Steve you strike me as the kind of guy who would cheat, I have no
reason to doubt that.
?
>
John
your "girlfriend"
Snit
2:13 PM:
>>> What's wrong, John... can't quite scrape that egg off your face? Would
>>> you like Snit to continue to make you look like a fool for backing him
>>> up
>>
>>
>> Steve you strike me as the kind of guy who would cheat, I have no
>> reason to doubt that.
>> ?
>>>
> You idiot Steve. He was referring to your fellow troll Elizabot as
> your "girlfriend"
The very one Steve posted directions to on how to get to her house and noted
it was a 69 mile road trip.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
John
Yes I remember that now. She used to assist him in trolling. Yes the
way she hung around she certainly "seemed" like his "girlfriend. LOL!!!
Steve will try anything it seems to discredit you.
Snit
2:11 PM:
...
> Steve you strike me as the kind of guy who would cheat, I have no
> reason to doubt that.
> ?
Steve has made it clear that he was living with a woman he considered his
wife (though no court would, he claimed) and then he made it clear he was
involved with another woman - even posting maps from his house to hers and
following her around like a puppy in a public forum. It was gross. Steve
was clearly acting just like a love-struck pre-teen.
Steve now denies that he was dumped by her, but he cannot offer *any* other
reason for his intense hatred (nor any reason why he posted a map from his
house to hers). As she became more obsessed with me, to the point of
whining when I did not include her in my family planning, Steve got more and
more outraged.
That was 2004. And now, in 2009, Steve is still pissy - to the point that
he is taking things out of Usenet and trying to adversely affect me at my
place of employment... while *simultaneously* saying he thinks the research
he did to find where I work is incorrect.
Steve cannot stay consistent from one post to the next... or even from one
sentence to the next.
But Sandman will back him up. Watch for it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2:23 PM:
I will not go into details about her actions in a public forum - she is no
longer trolling - but even she noted that Steve was the one person more
obsessed with me than she was... the more she focused on me the more he did.
He really went whacko as she started whining about my wife being pregnant
without having even talked to her about it.
So now Steve uses his poor behavior from 2004 to try to excuse his taking
things out of CSMA and trying to get me fired in 2009.
For over five years Steve has been upset and consumed with his hatred. He
denies it is over being dumped... but offers no other explanation for his
obvious irrational over-the-top hatred.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
>
> > That look like a "delusion" to you John? I'm married to the same women
> > I've lived with for many years. I have no "girlfriend"... I made no
> > "road trips". Snit's false accusation of adultery is the "delusion"
> > here.
>
> > What's wrong, John... can't quite scrape that egg off your face? Would
> > you like Snit to continue to make you look like a fool for backing him
> > up
>
> Steve you strike me as the kind of guy who would cheat, I have no
> reason to doubt that.
You miss it... what you claim I strike you as isn't relevant. The
facts I just posted above show that a person calling himself Snit
libeled me in a public forum by posting something damaging to me that
he doesn't stand a chance of proving true because it isn't true. I'm
on the verge of contacting Yavapai College with a very reasonable
request for an investigation into what appears to be a case of
identity theft of one of their instructors. I will write about all the
things the person I reasonably believe to be an imposter has pulled on
this newsgroup that I'm aware of and I will document it like I
documented the above. We'll see if the folks at Yavapai College
consider them to be "delusions" like you claim to. Perhaps they'll
just dismiss me the way you are dismissing me. OTOH... perhaps they
will conduct an investigation regarding what I consider to be
reasonable suspicion of ID theft. IOW... perhaps they will also
consider the actions undertaken by this Snit person to be suspicious
and wonder if it is, in fact, a person they are employing. For all
anyone knows, at this point, it's just a kid impersonating one of his
college instructors.
Can you give me one good reason why I shouldn't do this?
Steve Carroll
> John stated in post uq2dnSY6GK5k2gXXnZ2dnUVZ_v6dn...@giganews.com on 8/28/09
See what I mean, John? Here is more libel from this Snit person. You
sure you want to continue to back up the actions of a person doing
this?
Snit
4aba2245-a0e9-408e...@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com on 8/28/09
3:09 PM:
>> Steve you strike me as the kind of guy who would cheat, �I have no
>> reason to doubt that.
>
> You miss it...
While you might, nobody in CSMA cares about your extramarital affairs,
Steve. We certainly do not "miss" them.
...
> Can you give me one good reason why I shouldn't do this?
You need others to help you find a *reason* to not contact someone's work
place and try to get them fired, simply because you have lost some Usenet
debates.
Steve, this is just sickness.
Really, Steve... think about how desperate you have become.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
3:15 PM:
> On Aug 28, 3:27�ｿｽpm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> John stated in post uq2dnSY6GK5k2gXXnZ2dnUVZ_v6dn...@giganews.com on 8/28/09
>> 2:11 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Steve you strike me as the kind of guy who would cheat, �ｿｽI have no
>>> reason to doubt that.
>>> ?
>>
>> Steve has made it clear that he was living with a woman he considered his
>> wife (though no court would, he claimed) and then he made it clear he was
>> involved with another woman - even posting maps from his house to hers and
>> following her around like a puppy in a public forum. �ｿｽIt was gross. �ｿｽSteve
>> was clearly acting just like a love-struck pre-teen.
>>
>> Steve now denies that he was dumped by her, but he cannot offer *any* other
>> reason for his intense hatred (nor any reason why he posted a map from his
>> house to hers). �ｿｽAs she became more obsessed with me, to the point of
>> whining when I did not include her in my family planning, Steve got more and
>> more outraged.
>>
>> That was 2004. �ｿｽAnd now, in 2009, Steve is still pissy - to the point that
>> he is taking things out of Usenet and trying to adversely affect me at my
>> place of employment... while *simultaneously* saying he thinks the research
>> he did to find where I work is incorrect.
>>
>> Steve cannot stay consistent from one post to the next... or even from one
>> sentence to the next.
>>
>> But Sandman will back him up. �ｿｽWatch for it.
>>
>> --
>> [INSERT .SIG HERE]
>
> See what I mean, John? Here is more libel from this Snit person. You
> sure you want to continue to back up the actions of a person doing
> this?
For it to be "libel" it would have to not be true... yet you cannot point to
where it is not true... nor offer a single reason why you are so consumed by
your hatred. And you clearly are.
You claim the reason I state is inaccurate - but you have no alternative.
Your claim of "libel" is a joke.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Steve has made it clear that he was living with a woman he considered his
> >> wife (though no court would, he claimed) and then he made it clear he was
> >> involved with another woman - even posting maps from his house to hers and
> >> following her around like a puppy in a public forum. �It was gross. �Steve
> >> was clearly acting just like a love-struck pre-teen.
> >>
> >> Steve now denies that he was dumped by her, but he cannot offer *any*
> >> other
> >> reason for his intense hatred (nor any reason why he posted a map from his
> >> house to hers). �As she became more obsessed with me, to the point of
> >> whining when I did not include her in my family planning, Steve got more
> >> and
> >> more outraged.
> >>
> >> That was 2004. �And now, in 2009, Steve is still pissy - to the point that
> >> he is taking things out of Usenet and trying to adversely affect me at my
> >> place of employment... while *simultaneously* saying he thinks the
> >> research
> >> he did to find where I work is incorrect.
> >>
> >> Steve cannot stay consistent from one post to the next... or even from one
> >> sentence to the next.
> >
> > See what I mean, John? Here is more libel from this Snit person. You
> > sure you want to continue to back up the actions of a person doing
> > this?
>
> For it to be "libel" it would have to not be true... yet you cannot point to
> where it is not true...
So you claim something about someone else and that means they have to
"point" to it not being true and if they can't, it's "clearly" true,
I'm assuming?
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
> 3:09 PM:
>
> >> Steve you strike me as the kind of guy who would cheat, I have no
> >> reason to doubt that.
>
> > You miss it...
>
> While you might, nobody in CSMA cares about your extramarital affairs,
> Steve. We certainly do not "miss" them.
>
> ...
>
> > Can you give me one good reason why I shouldn't do this?
>
> You need others to help you find a *reason* to not contact someone's work
... when they have conducted themselves the way you have while trying
to get people to believe you work for Yavapai College?
Yes... and, given the kinds of things you've posted, it would need to
be a very good reason.
> place and try to get them fired, simply because you have lost some Usenet
> debates.
Fired? I don't know that you work anywhere, much less at this college
you want people to believe you work at. You have posted to usenet
virtually around the clock for years... the idea that you actually
hold a job is bordering on ludicrous.
> Steve, this is just sickness.
It's not a "sickness" to point out how a person who appears to be an
imposter is making false charges of adultery in a public newsgroup.
t's not a "sickness" to point out how a person who appears to be an
imposter has engaged in forging posting ID's. t's not a "sickness" to
point out how a person who appears to be an imposter has created
disparaging websites about posters with the intent of humiliating
them. It's not a "sickness" to point out how a person who appears to
be an imposter has forged PDF's and tried to pin it on others. It's
not a "sickness" to point out how a person who appears to be an
imposter is trolling usenet to the point that several newsgroups full
of people have commented on the kinds of things I just mentioned. The
only "sickness" here is being exhibited by the person doing all these
kinds of things and believing (falsely) that he could get away with
all of it with no one confronting him on it.
> Really, Steve... think about how desperate you have become.
Are you trying to "dissuade" me from contacting Yavapai College? If
you are an imposter I can see why you would attempt to do so. If you
are the real Michael Glasser... are you saying that you don't stand
behind what you've posted to usenet?
Interestingly, and hypocritically, it didn't seem to bother you when
you contacted clients of mine and tried to denigrate me in their
eyes.
Steve Carroll
That's seems to be Snit's bizarre misinterpretation of it (Snit
appears to be the poster boy for the idea that a little knowledge is a
dangerous thing). Were he faced with a libel suit he'd quickly find
out that's not the way it works in a case like this one. I'm guessing
that Snit has a relative who is a lawyer... and he's studied the law
the way Snit has studied 'psychology'.
Snit
3:56 PM:
>>> For it to be "libel" it would have to not be true... yet you cannot point to
>>> where it is not true...
>>
>> So you claim something about someone else and that means they have to
>> "point" to it not being true and if they can't, it's "clearly" true,
>> I'm assuming?
>
> That's seems to be Snit's bizarre misinterpretation of it (Snit
> appears to be the poster boy for the idea that a little knowledge is a
> dangerous thing). Were he faced with a libel suit he'd quickly find
> out that's not the way it works in a case like this one. I'm guessing
> that Snit has a relative who is a lawyer... and he's studied the law
> the way Snit has studied 'psychology'.
You have tried to pull your CSMA trolling to my place of work.
When busted, you whine about alleged libel you cannot support.
The fact is, Steve, you are again pulling things out of CSMA and trying to
affect my personal life in a negative way by targeting my professional life,
even threatening to contact my employer again.
There is *no* excuse for your behavior. None. But enough giving you
attention... you were jealous Sandman was still getting some so you had to
escalate. As I predicted. I just did not predict you would be so desperate
for attention as to sink as far as you did.
Now go play with your dog.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
3:46 PM:
...
>> You need others to help you find a *reason* to not contact someone's work
>
> ... when they have conducted themselves the way you have while trying
>
> to get people to believe you work for Yavapai College?
Who did I try to convince of that? Please quote me.
Oh, and responding to trolls such as yourself, while maybe a little odd, is
not an immorral way to "conduct" oneself. No matter how you try to twist
it.
The topic here, which you are running from, is that you - again - lost some
Usenet debates. Instead of reacting like an adult, you started posting with
a sock (your "dog") and are now trying to have your lies spread outside of
CSMA and to my place of employment... a place *you* tracked me down to.
So now you are looking to have others help you find a reason - a defense -
you can use to explain your contacting my place of employment.
You are a sick, sick man, Steve. You lost a Usenet debate. Get over it and
move on.
...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/28/09 3:36 PM:
...
>> For it to be "libel" it would have to not be true... yet you cannot point to
>> where it is not true...
>
> So you claim something about someone else and that means they have to
> "point" to it not being true and if they can't, it's "clearly" true,
> I'm assuming?
>
>
>
What a surprise: you are supporting Steve Carroll with your bizarre
assumptions!
Who would have guessed.
Hey, do you think it is right for Steve Carroll to take things out of CSMA
and contact peoples employers... all because he lost some debates and is
desperate for attention?
Yes, I know you will run. You will not answer as a reasonable person would.
Which will prove me right about you.
Again.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Jimmyjohn
"Steve Carroll" <fret...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:f07772eb-c594-4392...@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
This is very entertaining. Snit has friends here.
Jimmyjohn
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C6BD922E.4473C%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
Does Steve live near you?
Jimmyjohn
On Aug 28, 12:23 pm, John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> hophead wrote:
> > In article <-cidnQoWpISOgQrXnZ2dnUVZ_qKdn...@giganews.com>,
> > nos...@nospam.com says...
> >> Anybody know if those two guys are still alive?
>
> > Don't know about Rogosta, but GG is alive and well.
>
> I wish he would drop in again. I use to enjoy reading and debating with
> him.
He's in... he's been in.
My, how cryptic. This is in his blood. He loves to be abused. I wonder
what makes him so bitter?
Snit
His ISP shows him being about 12-13 hours away by car. He has claimed to
have free flights, though, and even though the town I live in is small,
there is an airport. Even if could not fly there, he could fly to a large
airport a couple hours away from me.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> For it to be "libel" it would have to not be true... yet you cannot point
> >> to
> >> where it is not true...
> >
> > So you claim something about someone else and that means they have to
> > "point" to it not being true and if they can't, it's "clearly" true,
> > I'm assuming?
>
> What a surprise: you are supporting Steve Carroll with your bizarre
> assumptions!
Only if "supporting" is synonymous with "questioning your logic",
which I'm sure it is to you.
> Hey, do you think it is right for Steve Carroll to take things out of CSMA
> and contact peoples employers... all because he lost some debates and is
> desperate for attention?
>
> Yes, I know you will run. You will not answer as a reasonable person would.
>
> Which will prove me right about you.
>
> Again.
So you claim something about someone else and that means they have to
"point" to it not being true and if they can't, it's "clearly" true,
I'm assuming?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8/28/09 11:43 PM:
>> Hey, do you think it is right for Steve Carroll to take things out of CSMA
>> and contact peoples employers... all because he lost some debates and is
>> desperate for attention?
>>
>> Yes, I know you will run. You will not answer as a reasonable person would.
>>
>> Which will prove me right about you.
>>
>> Again.
>
> So you claim something about someone else and that means they have to
> "point" to it not being true and if they can't, it's "clearly" true,
> I'm assuming?
I do not doubt you make all sorts of bizarre and irrational assumptions in
your shilling for Steve... even ones you clearly do not believe!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
"point" to it not being true and if they can't, it's "clearly" true?
--
Sandman[.net]
Chance Furlong
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> your shilling for Steve, even ones you clearly do not believe!
Why would Sandman shill for Steve Carroll or anyone else? Steve is
capable of speaking for himself.
Snit
on 8/29/09 12:05 AM:
Not very well... clearly.
Heck, recently he has been blaming his dog for his own actions... then
getting his dog to post. No socks there, though.. right? LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/28/09 11:58 PM:
What? Huh? Steve made an accusation... he accused me of committing the
crime of libel. He offered *no* evidence. Not a shred. If he does quote
my saying something he claims is libel, of course, I have no obligation to
follow him down that rabbit hole and re-hash ancient debates... which is his
real goal.
Of course, all of this is a side issue to obfuscate Steve's current actions
of working to take his BS outside of CSMA to my employer... the very company
he denies believing I work for yet repeatedly brings up and insists I am
trying to convince *him* I work there.
Yeah, Steve Carroll cannot stay consistent from post to post, is taking
debates out of CSMA and trying to get people in "hot water" in their jobs...
and you are right there to back him up.
Then you pretend to not be in some coalition with him to back up each others
trolling.
Who do you think is stupid enough to not see the games you two are playing?
Not me, I hope... I surely am not as stupid as you would need me to be to
believe your BS.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > So you claim something about someone else and that means they have to
> > "point" to it not being true and if they can't, it's "clearly" true?
>
> What? Huh? Steve made an accusation... he accused me of committing the
> crime of libel.
Snits unsubstantiated claim:
"Steve has made it clear that he was living with a woman he
considered hi> wife (though no court would, he claimed) and
then he made it clear he wasinvolved with another woman"
Steve calling this libel:
"See what I mean, John? Here is more libel from this Snit person."
Snit claiming that Steve has to prove the libel isn't true:
"For it to be "libel" it would have to not be true... yet you
cannot point to where it is not true..."
Where in fact for it to NOT be libel, it has to be true, yet you
cannot point to where it IS true.
It is your claim, your unsupported claim. Something you as usual only
label as being "clear", meaning that it is unsupported and relies only
on your imaginative interpretation and trollish lying (and probably a
good deal of quote forging).
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8/29/09 12:46 AM:
> In article <C6BE295D.448B9%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> So you claim something about someone else and that means they have to
>>> "point" to it not being true and if they can't, it's "clearly" true?
>>
>> What? Huh? Steve made an accusation... he accused me of committing the
>> crime of libel.
>
> Snits unsubstantiated claim:
> "Steve has made it clear that he was living with a woman he
> considered hi> wife (though no court would, he claimed) and
> then he made it clear he wasinvolved with another woman"
>
> Steve calling this libel:
> "See what I mean, John? Here is more libel from this Snit person."
>
> Snit claiming that Steve has to prove the libel isn't true:
> "For it to be "libel" it would have to not be true... yet you
> cannot point to where it is not true..."
>
>
> Where in fact for it to NOT be libel, it has to be true, yet you
> cannot point to where it IS true.
If I note that 2+2=4, and Steve claims that I have committed libel in so
saying, it is his obligation to support his accusation of a crime being
committed. Not mine.
> It is your claim, your unsupported claim.
Even you quote Steve making the unsupported claim of "libel"... so how is it
now, in your mind, my claim?
> Something you as usual only
> label as being "clear", meaning that it is unsupported and relies only
> on your imaginative interpretation and trollish lying (and probably a
> good deal of quote forging).
It is clear that Steve made the accusation of "libel". You even quoted it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Sandman stated in post mr-1C3661.09...@News.Individual.NET on
> 8/29/09 12:46 AM:
>
> > In article <C6BE295D.448B9%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> So you claim something about someone else and that means they have to
> >>> "point" to it not being true and if they can't, it's "clearly" true?
> >>
> >> What? Huh? Steve made an accusation... he accused me of committing the
> >> crime of libel.
> >
> > Snits unsubstantiated claim:
> > "Steve has made it clear that he was living with a woman he
> > considered hi> wife (though no court would, he claimed) and
> > then he made it clear he wasinvolved with another woman"
> >
> > Steve calling this libel:
> > "See what I mean, John? Here is more libel from this Snit person."
> >
> > Snit claiming that Steve has to prove the libel isn't true:
> > "For it to be "libel" it would have to not be true... yet you
> > cannot point to where it is not true..."
> >
> >
> > Where in fact for it to NOT be libel, it has to be true, yet you
> > cannot point to where it IS true.
>
> If I note that 2+2=4, and Steve claims that I have committed libel in so
> saying, it is his obligation to support his accusation of a crime being
> committed. Not mine.
But you haven't noted that "2+2=4", you have made an explicit claim
about Steve that you haven't supported.
> > It is your claim, your unsupported claim.
>
> Even you quote Steve making the unsupported claim of "libel"... so how is it
> now, in your mind, my claim?
The one labeled as "Snits unsubstantiated claim" is your
unsubstantiated claim.
> > Something you as usual only
> > label as being "clear", meaning that it is unsupported and relies only
> > on your imaginative interpretation and trollish lying (and probably a
> > good deal of quote forging).
>
> It is clear that Steve made the accusation of "libel". You even quoted it.
Obfuscation.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8/29/09 1:06 AM:
>> If I note that 2+2=4, and Steve claims that I have committed libel in so
>> saying, it is his obligation to support his accusation of a crime being
>> committed. Not mine.
>
> But you haven't noted that "2+2=4", you have made an explicit claim
> about Steve that you haven't supported.
Wait? Are you saying you do not recall when he was living with a woman he
claimed was his wife but also denied being married to?
>>> It is your claim, your unsupported claim.
>>
>> Even you quote Steve making the unsupported claim of "libel"... so how is it
>> now, in your mind, my claim?
>
> The one labeled as "Snits unsubstantiated claim" is your
> unsubstantiated claim.
So Steve, in your view, has no obligation to support his accusation of
libel?
>>> Something you as usual only
>>> label as being "clear", meaning that it is unsupported and relies only
>>> on your imaginative interpretation and trollish lying (and probably a
>>> good deal of quote forging).
>>
>> It is clear that Steve made the accusation of "libel". You even quoted it.
>
> Obfuscation.
Well, I am focusing on the unsupported claim. Isn't that what you wanted to
talk about?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> If I note that 2+2=4, and Steve claims that I have committed libel in so
> >> saying, it is his obligation to support his accusation of a crime being
> >> committed. Not mine.
> >
> > But you haven't noted that "2+2=4", you have made an explicit claim
> > about Steve that you haven't supported.
>
> Wait? Are you saying you do not recall when he was living with a woman he
> claimed was his wife but also denied being married to?
I am correctly pointing out that you are making an unsupported claim,
as usual.
> >>> It is your claim, your unsupported claim.
> >>
> >> Even you quote Steve making the unsupported claim of "libel"... so how is
> >> it
> >> now, in your mind, my claim?
> >
> > The one labeled as "Snits unsubstantiated claim" is your
> > unsubstantiated claim.
>
> So Steve, in your view, has no obligation to support his accusation of
> libel?
Not until you have supported your unsupported claim and it is true,
no.
> >>> Something you as usual only
> >>> label as being "clear", meaning that it is unsupported and relies only
> >>> on your imaginative interpretation and trollish lying (and probably a
> >>> good deal of quote forging).
> >>
> >> It is clear that Steve made the accusation of "libel". You even quoted
> >> it.
> >
> > Obfuscation.
>
> Well, I am focusing on the unsupported claim. Isn't that what you wanted to
> talk about?
So support your claim, then.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8/29/09 1:16 AM:
...
> I am correctly pointing out that you are making an unsupported claim,
> as usual.
Do you think it is unsupported that Steve used to say he lived with a woman
who was his wife but *also* denied being married to her?
...
>> So Steve, in your view, has no obligation to support his accusation of
>> libel?
>
> Not until you have supported your unsupported claim and it is true,
> no.
So you will not say what claim of mine you think is unsupported, but you
will demand I support it and say that Steve Carroll can make all the
unsupported accusations of law breaking he wants... and he has no obligation
to support his claims.
No double standard there on your part, eh? LOL!
Fa-groon
(in article <xG%lm.177$nQ6...@newsfe07.iad>):
You, a sick psychopath, calling someone else delusional is almost funny.
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Snits unsupported claim:
"Steve has made it clear that he was living with a woman he
considered his wife (though no court would, he claimed) and
then he made it clear he was involved with another woman"
Steve calling this libel:
"See what I mean, John? Here is more libel from this Snit person."
Snit claiming that Steve has to prove the libel isn't true:
"For it to be "libel" it would have to not be true... yet you
cannot point to where it is not true..."
> > I am correctly pointing out that you are making an unsupported claim,
> > as usual.
>
> Do you think it is unsupported that Steve used to say he lived with a woman
> who was his wife but *also* denied being married to her?
I am correctly pointing out that you are making an unsupported claim
> >> So Steve, in your view, has no obligation to support his accusation of
> >> libel?
> >
> > Not until you have supported your unsupported claim and it is true,
> > no.
>
> So you will not say what claim of mine you think is unsupported
Unless you count the times I have labeled it as such, that is.
> will demand I support it and say that Steve Carroll can make all the
> unsupported accusations of law breaking he wants... and he has no obligation
> to support his claims.
I can not be held responsible for things that occur only in your head.
Your claim remains unsubstantiated.
--
Sandman[.net]
Jimmyjohn
"Fa-groon" <fa-g...@mad.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C6BE3BBE...@news.giganews.com...
delusional. You should try to read and understand a thread, before you go
off in hysterics. My fantasy of the day, a 100 ton safe falls on your head.
Steve Carroll
> Sandman stated in post mr-22B8D1.08583729082...@News.Individual.NET on
> 8/28/09 11:58 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <C6BE1D64.448A4%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> 8/28/09 11:43 PM:
>
> >>>> Hey, do you think it is right for Steve Carroll to take things out of CSMA
> >>>> and contact peoples employers... all because he lost some debates and is
> >>>> desperate for attention?
>
> >>>> Yes, I know you will run. You will not answer as a reasonable person
> >>>> would.
>
> >>>> Which will prove me right about you.
>
> >>>> Again.
>
> >>> So you claim something about someone else and that means they have to
> >>> "point" to it not being true and if they can't, it's "clearly" true,
> >>> I'm assuming?
>
> >> I do not doubt you make all sorts of bizarre and irrational assumptions in
> >> your shilling for Steve... even ones you clearly do not believe!
>
> > So you claim something about someone else and that means they have to
> > "point" to it not being true and if they can't, it's "clearly" true?
>
> What? Huh? Steve made an accusation... he accused me of committing the
> crime of libel.
That's because I believe you committed the crime of libel. If you have
a problem with this I suggest you also seek legal counsel. Perhaps
that person can explain the definition of the word libel to you in a
way that you'll be able to understand it.
> He offered *no* evidence. Not a shred.
Lying won't help you now, Google shows I have linked to your false and
damaging claims that I have a "girlfriend" to whom I've made "road
trips". Ironically, your repeatedly having reported me to Comcast
can now work against you in this situation.
John
You stupid idiot. He was referring to Elizabot as your "girlfriend"
because she hung out and assisted with your trolling. And you even once
mentioned a 69 mile distance to where she lived in Colorado.
Snit
6:30 AM:
>>> So you claim something about someone else and that means they have to
>>> "point" to it not being true and if they can't, it's "clearly" true?
>>
>> What? �Huh? �Steve made an accusation... he accused me of committing the
>> crime of libel.
>
>
> That's because I believe you committed the crime of libel. If you have
> a problem with this I suggest you also seek legal counsel. Perhaps
> that person can explain the definition of the word libel to you in a
> way that you'll be able to understand it.
>
>> �He offered *no* evidence. �Not a shred.
>
>
> Lying won't help you now, Google shows I have linked to your false and
> damaging claims that I have a "girlfriend" to whom I've made "road
> trips". Ironically, your repeatedly having reported me to Comcast
> can now work against you in this situation.
Wait! Before the issue was the comments about you having a "wife" you
claimed to not be married to. Now you are denying your relationship with
your ex?
What do you claim to be the truth? Can you keep it consistent with your
past comments?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Jimmyjohn
He sounds dangerous and irrational. I would file a report of his threats to
the police.
Snit
7:16 AM:
Well worth considering. His ex. had a form of online restraining order
where she could not post to CSMA or a number of other forums for some time.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
Thank you for making it crystal clear that you believe (which means
Snit convinced you with his lies) that he was referencing Elizabot.
Steve Carroll
> 6:30 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> So you claim something about someone else and that means they have to
> >>> "point" to it not being true and if they can't, it's "clearly" true?
>
> >> What? Huh? Steve made an accusation... he accused me of committing the
> >> crime of libel.
>
> > That's because I believe you committed the crime of libel. If you have
> > a problem with this I suggest you also seek legal counsel. Perhaps
> > that person can explain the definition of the word libel to you in a
> > way that you'll be able to understand it.
>
> >> He offered *no* evidence. Not a shred.
>
> > Lying won't help you now, Google shows I have linked to your false and
> > damaging claims that I have a "girlfriend" to whom I've made "road
> > trips". Ironically, your repeatedly having reported me to Comcast
> > can now work against you in this situation.
>
> Wait!
What am I waiting for? You to finally offer a reason why I shouldn't
write to Yavapai College about the likelihood of you being an
imposter? If you have a reason I'm open to listening to it.
Snit
8/29/09 2:28 AM:
> In article <C6BE3586.448E6%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> Snits unsupported claim:
> "Steve has made it clear that he was living with a woman he
> considered his wife (though no court would, he claimed) and
> then he made it clear he was involved with another woman"
>
> Steve calling this libel:
> "See what I mean, John? Here is more libel from this Snit person."
>
> Snit claiming that Steve has to prove the libel isn't true:
> "For it to be "libel" it would have to not be true... yet you
> cannot point to where it is not true..."
Are you saying you think my comments about Steve's claims about how "wife"
are not well supported? Do you deny that Steve has been quoted saying this
in the past? These things have been in discussion since 2004... Steve was
claiming he was married, claiming he was not, claiming he had a wife,
admitting he really did not, etc.
Why are you questioning it now... *FIVE* years past when it was well
established? It is not like you were not posting then.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Jimmyjohn stated in post 6Lamm.185476$3m2.183...@newsfe06.iad on 8/29/09
> 7:16 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> >news:C6BDD960.4482A%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> >> PM:
>
> >>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:C6BD922E.4473C%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> >>>> 8/28/09
> >>>> 1:47 PM:
>
> >>>> ...
> >>>>> It is NOT a delusion that you live in a world of delusions Steve. Just
> >>>>> sick.
>
> >>>> The fact: he lost some Usenet debates so he tracked me down to my place of
> >>>> employment, insisted I am an imposter to the person he found out I am (does
> >>>> that make sense to anyone but Steve?) and is now working to adversely
> >>>> affect me at my place of employment.
>
> >>>> Steve cannot defend his actions - so he repeats accusations against me. Of
> >>>> course, Steve knows I would never sink to his level, so he does not fear
> >>>> retaliation.
>
> >>> Does Steve live near you?
>
> >> His ISP shows him being about 12-13 hours away by car. He has claimed to
> >> have free flights, though, and even though the town I live in is small, there
> >> is an airport. Even if could not fly there, he could fly to a large airport
> >> a couple hours away from me.
>
> > He sounds dangerous and irrational. I would file a report of his threats to
> > the police.
>
> Well worth considering.
If you feel I'm a threat I suggest you do it, in fact, I encourage you
to do so... it's high time the authorities see what you're doing. I
also suggest you contact a lawyer to explain what the word libel means
and what is required to prove it in this case. In any event, unless
you, or someone, can give me a good reason to believe you are not an
imposter I will be writing to Yavapai College about what appears to be
an imposter. That's not a threat, it's a promise based on what appears
to be an imposter. If you are the real Michael Glasser who teaches at
Yavapai your only problem is if that college is willing to stand
behind you when I point out all the things you have done online. If
you are an imposter and you are caught, you have a different set of
problems.
> His ex. had a form of online restraining order
> where she could not post to CSMA or a number of other forums for some time.
Statement like this one are false, as I have repeatedly pointed out...
and I believe that a college level instructor would continue to tell
lies like this one unless he had a mental illness or something. If it
turns out that you aren't an imposter you might want to consider the
idea that Yavapai College would agree with me about this. I suspect
that your delusional idea that csma has some sort of wall around it...
that it's not part of the real world... will soon come crashing down
around you.
Snit
6:46 AM:
Doing a little research, Steve claimed it was *79* miles, not 69, so I stand
corrected on that. Steve posted a map from his house to hers, but then
changed the shortURL to hide that.
Is that the "libel" Steve means? Sandman was saying it was because I
referenced Steve's admission he was not married:
I only bite my wife's ass.
I live with a women I refer to as my wife. We have two kids
and have been together for over 18 years.
We are not married by either church or state and do not get
the entitlements that our married neighbors get. From my
viewpoint, I don't care what the state's involvement in
marriage is because it has no direct effect on my life."
I VERY plainly stated that when it came to a reference
regarding nation-wide recognized *marriages* that I was
unmarried. What part of that confused you? Do you feel I have
mislead someone with my use of the word 'wife'? That I have
not made it clear (to YOUR satisfaction) what my current
position is regarding 'marriage'?
I AM married via common law in Colorado, though, the state
has no recognition of it yet.
What is a wife again, Mayor? A married woman, isn't it?
in fact, that I stated I was unmarried
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
7:35 AM:
...
>> Wait! Before the issue was the comments about you having a "wife" you
>> claimed to not be married to. Now you are denying your relationship with
>> your ex?
>>
>> What do you claim to be the truth? Can you keep it consistent with your past
>> comments?
Hey, Steve... you did not answer the question. What do you consider to be
the truth? Can you keep your current claims consistent with your past
claims? I bet not!
> What am I waiting for? You to finally offer a reason why I shouldn't
> write to Yavapai College about the likelihood of you being an
> imposter? If you have a reason I'm open to listening to it.
Why do you need *other* people to offer you "a reason" to not react so
absurdly to your loss of Usenet debates? Maybe you can talk to your wife,
if she exists, and ask her to explain to you why taking your online
humiliation out by tracking people down to their place of employment and
trying to get them in "hot water" there is absurd of you. That is, of
course, if you are claiming to be married today:
Snit
7:34 AM:
>>> Lying won't help you now, Google shows I have linked to your false and
>>> damaging claims that I have a "girlfriend" to whom I've made "road
>>> trips". �Ironically, �your repeatedly having reported me to Comcast
>>> can now work against you in this situation.
>>
>> You stupid idiot. �He was referring to Elizabot as your "girlfriend"
>> because she hung out and assisted with your trolling. And you even once
>> mentioned a 69 mile distance to where she lived in Colorado.
>
> Thank you for making it crystal clear that you believe (which means
> Snit convinced you with his lies) that he was referencing Elizabot.
How many extramarital affairs have you had?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Jimmyjohn
Hmmm - seems as if a nerve was touched.
Snit
7:49 AM:
Gee, you track me down to my place of employment, lie that I am trying to
convince you of what you tracked down, and then threaten - based on the fact
you lost so many Usenet debates - to try to get me in "hot water" at work.
Gee, Steve, such a defensible position you take!
You do realize you are being a complete loon these days, right? You do
realize you have gone completely over the edge and are not even making a
little sense.
You do know that... right? You do know your hatred has completely consumed
you and you are not being even slightly rational. Right?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
AM:
Steve is having another of his breakdowns... he does this from time to time.
he loses a number of online debates and then starts threatening to get
people fired, to come and meet them, etc. If he actually does contact my
boss again, maybe this time he will use his real name - he has admitted that
"Carroll" is not his real name, he uses it to make sure people cannot do to
him what he does to others.
Even for Steve, this break down is pretty bad. He is whining that now that
he has tracked me down to where I work, this means I am trying to convince
him I work there... and that to "prove" I work there he feels the need to
contact my boss and not just email my work email, which he has pointed to.
In the past, in his break downs, he has shared his fear that I actually did
track him down and how he was having delusions that I had emailed his wife.
He later admitted, to his credit I suppose, that he had *no* evidence to
support his accusations... it was just a belief of his. He never did
apologize.
Now he and Sandman are whining that I commented about his claims to not
really be married to the woman he calls his wife... going so far as to call
this "libel". I have since found the quotes and quoted him again. So much
for his claim of "libel". Do not worry, though, he will soon make other
accusations and insist if I do not prove him wrong that this somehow
supports his accusations... as if I have some obligation to respond to him
at all, no less refute his every lie.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > Snits unsupported claim:
> > "Steve has made it clear that he was living with a woman he
> > considered his wife (though no court would, he claimed) and
> > then he made it clear he was involved with another woman"
> >
> > Steve calling this libel:
> > "See what I mean, John? Here is more libel from this Snit person."
> >
> > Snit claiming that Steve has to prove the libel isn't true:
> > "For it to be "libel" it would have to not be true... yet you
> > cannot point to where it is not true..."
>
> Are you saying you think my comments about Steve's claims about how "wife"
> are not well supported? Do you deny that Steve has been quoted saying this
> in the past? These things have been in discussion since 2004... Steve was
> claiming he was married, claiming he was not, claiming he had a wife,
> admitting he really did not, etc.
>
> Why are you questioning it now... *FIVE* years past when it was well
> established? It is not like you were not posting then.
Still no support for your unsupported claim. How many posts are you up
to now?
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
I didn't track you down. I don't "know", with any degree of certainty,
that you are the person you are trying to portray yourself as. Those
are the facts. If you even do work, how can anyone possibly get you in
"hot water" at work if you are innocent of the things people claim
about you? This makes no sense. Realistically, the only way you would
have a problem is if the things people are claiming that you've said
and done turn out to be true. You keep claiming that you're honest and
honorable and that you've done nothing wrong... so, from your
viewpoint, you're in the clear.
> Gee, Steve, such a defensible position you take!
I don't need to "defend" the position that I suspect you're an
imposter.
Tim Adams
Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
It would be interesting to see just what sort of a 'restraining order' was given
to Elizabot. I'd be surprised if michael glasser even knew what a'restraining
order' is, since he has so many problems with much simpler items. Hell, he's
still having problems dealing with what a 'common law marriage' is.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Steve Carroll
> Jimmyjohn stated in post 9kbmm.103686$nL7.19...@newsfe18.iad on 8/29/09 7:55
> AM:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Steve Carroll" <fretw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
If you even have one... I've never contacted your "boss". This is
just another lie by you.
> Even for Steve, this break down is pretty bad.
There is nothing "bad" about a person blowing the whistle on what
appears to be an imposter.
> Do not worry, though,
I don't see anyone, other than you, that looks 'worried' at all.
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
yet you can't point out any of them. so typical from a delusional person like
michael glasser.
Snit
8/29/09 8:17 AM:
How many times do you need me to quote Steve talking about his wife /
non-wife?
I live with a women I refer to as my wife. We have two kids
and have been together for over 18 years.
We are not married by either church or state and do not get
the entitlements that our married neighbors get. From my
viewpoint, I don't care what the state's involvement in
marriage is because it has no direct effect on my life."
I VERY plainly stated that when it came to a reference
regarding nation-wide recognized *marriages* that I was
unmarried. What part of that confused you? Do you feel I have
mislead someone with my use of the word 'wife'? That I have
not made it clear (to YOUR satisfaction) what my current
position is regarding 'marriage'?
I AM married via common law in Colorado, though, the state
has no recognition of it yet.
What is a wife again, Mayor? A married woman, isn't it?
in fact, that I stated I was unmarried
Had you just said you were pretending not to know this earlier instead of
playing games I could have helped you more quickly!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8:43 AM:
>> Steve is having another of his breakdowns... he does this from time to time.
>> he loses a number of online debates and then starts threatening to get
>> people fired, to come and meet them, etc. �If he actually does contact my
>> boss again,
>
> If you even have one... I've never contacted your "boss". This is
> just another lie by you.
Ah, your dog again, eh? Darn mutt... posting from your IP over and over.
You really need to do something about that!
>> Even for Steve, this break down is pretty bad.
>
> There is nothing "bad" about a person blowing the whistle on what
> appears to be an imposter.
Huh? I go by "Snit"... you tracked me down and brought up my real name and
where I work. How is that *me* being anyone's imposter?
See how irrational you get when you have your break downs... a "tell" is how
much you snip:
>> �Do not worry, though,
>
> I don't see anyone, other than you, that looks 'worried' at all.
See... you snipped and ran.
As far as worry... sure, I would prefer if you would stop threatening to
contact my place of employment again. I cannot stop you from acting
immorally, though. And, hey, if something comes of it, maybe you will go
far enough where I can sue you for damages. Not saying I am planning on
doing so... so far, as far as I know, there are no damages, at least in
regards to your contacting my employer. I hope you do not go that far.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Sandman stated in post mr-984686.17171729082...@News.Individual.NET on
> 8/29/09 8:17 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <C6BE8CC3.449BF%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Snits unsupported claim:
> >>> "Steve has made it clear that he was living with a woman he
> >>> considered his wife (though no court would, he claimed) and
> >>> then he made it clear he was involved with another woman"
>
> >>> Steve calling this libel:
> >>> "See what I mean, John? Here is more libel from this Snit person."
>
> >>> Snit claiming that Steve has to prove the libel isn't true:
> >>> "For it to be "libel" it would have to not be true... yet you
> >>> cannot point to where it is not true..."
>
> >> Are you saying you think my comments about Steve's claims about how "wife"
> >> are not well supported? Do you deny that Steve has been quoted saying this
> >> in the past? These things have been in discussion since 2004... Steve was
> >> claiming he was married, claiming he was not, claiming he had a wife,
> >> admitting he really did not, etc.
>
> >> Why are you questioning it now... *FIVE* years past when it was well
> >> established? It is not like you were not posting then.
>
> > Still no support for your unsupported claim. How many posts are you up
> > to now?
>
> How many times do you need me to quote Steve talking about his wife /
> non-wife?
How is it relevant to you repeating your lie about a "girlfriend" of
mine to whom I have made, according to your lie, "road trips"?
(snip quotes of me talking about a long term relationship that I have
never strayed from)
Snit
9:13 AM:
...
>> How many times do you need me to quote Steve talking about his wife /
>> non-wife?
>
> How is it relevant to you repeating your lie about a "girlfriend" of
> mine to whom I have made, according to your lie, "road trips"?
>
> (snip quotes of me talking about a long term relationship that I have
> never strayed from)
Sandman
Snits unsupported claim: "Steve has made it clear that he
was living with a woman he�considered his wife (though no
court would, he claimed)...
I supported the first claim that Sandman talked about. Will you acknowledge
he was wrong to say that claim was unsupported (I merely quoted my past
support).
If you can admit Sandman was wrong about that, then there is some value to
going forward. If you are just going to deny the support you are shown,
then why should I work to dig through ancient posts to show where you posted
the map to your ex's house, etc.?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
John
BULLSHIT!!! You even stalked his health history.
John
"Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:teadams$2$0$0$3-205EA4.11...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
Tim Adams is another delusional one.
Snit
9:24 AM:
>>> Steve is having another of his breakdowns... he does this from time to time.
>>> he loses a number of online debates
>>>
>> yet you can't point out any of them. so typical from a delusional person like
>> michael glasser.
>>
>
>
> Tim Adams is another delusional one.
Tim is in snip-and-run mode... he knows he has no leg to stand on.
Steve Carroll has had a number of these public break downs... but let us say
Tim has really forgotten about them all. So? Steve is clearly having one
now.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
9:23 AM:
Exactly...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8:37 AM:
>> Gee, you track me down to my place of employment, lie that I am trying to
>> convince you of what you tracked down, and then threaten - based on the fact
>> you lost so many Usenet debates - to try to get me in "hot water" at work.
>
>
> I didn't track you down.
Who do you say did? Your ex? She did track down the names of my neighbors
and use that in her trolling of me. Even claimed they were watching me for
her.
But anyway... who do you claim tracked me down? And whoever it is, how
would I be impersonating someone a troll claimed I was?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8:37 AM:
> I don't "know", with any degree of certainty,
> that you are the person you are trying to portray yourself as.
I "portray" myself as "Snit".
You are the one tying me to my real name and where I work. Not I.
So now you claim you do not know if your claims are accurate. OK.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8:37 AM:
> If you even do work, how can anyone possibly get you in "hot water" at work if
> you are innocent of the things people claim about you?
Some day, Steve, I hope you enter the real world.
Accusations - even false ones such as yours - can ruin carriers.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8:37 AM:
> Realistically, the only way you would have a problem is if the things people
> are claiming that you've said and done turn out to be true.
>
What things... specifically.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> 8:43 AM:
>
> >> Steve is having another of his breakdowns... he does this from time to time.
> >> he loses a number of online debates and then starts threatening to get
> >> people fired, to come and meet them, etc. If he actually does contact my
> >> boss again,
>
> > If you even have one... I've never contacted your "boss". This is
> > just another lie by you.
>
> Ah, your dog again, eh? Darn mutt... posting from your IP over and over.
Too bad your new lies can't erase your old ones, huh?
> As far as worry... sure, I would prefer if you would stop threatening to
> contact my place of employment again.
You're confused. I'm not threatening to do anything, I'm promising
you that, unless you, or someone, can give me a sound reason not to,
I intend on providing certain parties with information they can use to
determine if there is a case of identity theft (a thing you have
engaged in online) involving a person that represents them in their
community. John tried to help you but it backfired... all he did was
support the idea that you are also targeting Elizabot in your libelous
statements... a thing supported by the many other libelous statements
similar to this one where you actually used the name "Elizabot" in
reference to being my "girlfriend".
> I cannot stop you from acting immorally, though.
Again, you're confused... it's not "immoral" to blow the whistle on
what appears to be an imposter.
(snip more crap and hollow threats by person calling himself "Snit")
Snit
9:35 AM:
> On Aug 29, 9:53�am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Steve Carroll stated in post
>> 4bdb97b8-4d6c-42f9-84b1-9f1b802c3...@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com on 8/29/09
>> 8:43 AM:
>>
>>>> Steve is having another of his breakdowns... he does this from time to
>>>> time.
>>>> he loses a number of online debates and then starts threatening to get
>>>> people fired, to come and meet them, etc. �If he actually does contact my
>>>> boss again,
>>
>>> If you even have one... I've never contacted your "boss". �This is
>>> just another lie by you.
>>
>> Ah, your dog again, eh? �Darn mutt... posting from your IP over and over.
>
> Too bad your new lies can't erase your old ones, huh?
Are you now denying you blame your dog for your actions?
Steve Carroll:
-----
I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure my dog got up to the
keyboard and created an entry. You saw that cat playing piano
on TV lately, right? Well... my dog doesn't like to be
upstaged. Now I just have to teach him about "context" ...
-----
>> As far as worry... sure, I would prefer if you would stop threatening to
>> contact my place of employment again.
>
> You're confused. I'm not threatening to do anything,
You repeatedly are threatening to take your lost battles out of CSMA and
contact my employer - who you tracked down - to try to get me in trouble
with my boss.
You can deny this all you want... but you have posted your threats for all
to see repeatedly.
> I'm promising you that, unless you, or someone, can give me a sound reason not
> to, I intend on providing certain parties with information they can use to
> determine if there is a case of identity theft (a thing you have engaged in
> online) involving a person that represents them in their community.
What person do you think I am "representing" myself as?
> John tried to help you but it backfired... all he did was support the idea
> that you are also targeting Elizabot in your libelous statements... a thing
> supported by the many other libelous statements similar to this one where you
> actually used the name "Elizabot" in reference to being my "girlfriend".
Sad that your breakup was so painful you cannot even mention her online
name.
>> �I cannot stop you from acting immorally, though.
>
> Again, you're confused... it's not "immoral" to blow the whistle on
> what appears to be an imposter.
>
> (snip more crap and hollow threats by person calling himself "Snit")
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
9:35 AM:
> You're confused. I'm not threatening to do anything
You are lying. You have posted your threat to contact my employer and take
your lost Usenet battles there... clearly in an effort to get me fired.
You tried this before in one of your breakdowns. Now you are threatening to
do so again.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> "Steve Carroll" <fretw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
I didn't "stalk" anything. A person named "Snit" put things into the
public record on usenet. The fact is... I don't know, and neither do
you, that what this "Snit" person posted regarding his "health
history" was even true. This "Snit" person has told so many lies there
is no reason to believe a single thing he says... as the vast majority
of people on this ng (and some from other newsgroups) that have
interacted with "Snit" have made clear. They've virtually all labeled
him a liar, troll or worse.
Steve Carroll
> 8:37 AM:
>
> > If you even do work, how can anyone possibly get you in "hot water" at work if
> > you are innocent of the things people claim about you?
>
> Some day, Steve, I hope you enter the real world.
>
> Accusations - even false ones such as yours - can ruin carriers.
Irrelevant. It's not a mere accusation to say:
1 - that you have falsely alleged I have or had a "girlfriend".
2 - that you have engaged in forging posting IDs.
3 - that you have created disparaging webpages designed to humiliate
people.
4 - that you made private emails available to the public without the
permission of the other party.
5 - that you purposefully misinterpret people's words to make it
appear like they've said something they haven't.
6 - that you forged a PDF while trying to pin it on someone else.
7 - that you have managed to align scores of people against you based
on behavior like the above and much more.
Snit
10:14 AM:
...
>>> If you even do work, how can anyone possibly get you in "hot water" at work
>>> if you are innocent of the things people claim about you?
>>
>> Some day, Steve, I hope you enter the real world.
>>
>> Accusations - even false ones such as yours - can ruin carriers.
>
> Irrelevant.
Not only is it relevant, Steve, it is the *only* point. You asked a
question: how can someone get in hot water at work if they are innocent of
the accusations you make. The answer is easily... in the real world it
happens.. people's careers are ruined by sniveling little whiners such as
yourself.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
10:14 AM:
> 1 - that you have falsely alleged I have or had a "girlfriend".
Ah, you now claim to have had a girlfriend. But you also claim to have a
wife... mail order perhaps?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
10:14 AM:
> 3 - that you have created disparaging webpages designed to humiliate
> people.
What facts posted about you did you find to be humiliating?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
10:14 AM:
> 6 - that you forged a PDF while trying to pin it on someone else.
The PDF's in question were fully verifiable. Need the links?
But why bring this up now? Ah, because you know you have "lost" your current
battle so you want to dredge up old ones.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Snits unsupported claim:
"Steve has made it clear that he was living with a woman he
considered his wife (though no court would, he claimed) and
then he made it clear he was involved with another woman"
Steve calling this libel:
"See what I mean, John? Here is more libel from this Snit person."
Snit claiming that Steve has to prove the libel isn't true:
"For it to be "libel" it would have to not be true... yet you
cannot point to where it is not true..."
> >> Why are you questioning it now... *FIVE* years past when it was well
> >> established? It is not like you were not posting then.
> >
> > Still no support for your unsupported claim. How many posts are you up
> > to now?
>
> How many times do you need me to quote Steve talking about his wife /
> non-wife?
None, I need you to support your claim.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
10:03 AM:
>> I didn't track you down.
>>
>> BULLSHIT!!! � � You even stalked his health history.
>
> I didn't "stalk" anything.
Hey, Steve... you are the one who claimed to "hunt" me... remember, you
called me a troll and said you were the "troll hunter". You bragged about
stalking me. You repeatedly pull up ancient quotes from health support
forums to further your trolling. You have recently been obsessing over my
personal data.
> A person named "Snit" put things into the public record on usenet. The fact
> is... I don't know, and neither do you, that what this "Snit" person posted
> regarding his "health history" was even true.
Ah, so you claim that the information you dug up as you stalked me is not
something you trust. Oh well. Does not change the fact you stalked me to
find out this information.
> This "Snit" person has told so many lies there is no reason to believe a
> single thing he says... as the vast majority of people on this ng (and some
> from other newsgroups) that have interacted with "Snit" have made clear.
> They've virtually all labeled him a liar, troll or worse.
Funny how you, Sandman, HPT and others in your current clique cannot
actually quote these alleged lies. Funny indeed!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/29/09 10:58 AM:
You snipped the quotes from Steve, you dishonest twerp.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > 6 - that you forged a PDF while trying to pin it on someone else.
>
> The PDF's in question were fully verifiable. Need the links?
http://csma.sandman.net/pages/PDFforgery
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
I snipped everything form your post that didn't support your claim,
yes. I see you're left with personal insults in lieu of actual support
for your claim. I can't say that I'm surprised.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8/29/09 11:04 AM:
That is not even the PDF Steve was referring to... unless he is bringing up
even older off-topic accusations than I thought. But assume he was that
desperate, Ok... what does your trolling website filled with absurd
accusations have to do with it?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/29/09 11:06 AM:
> I snipped everything
Of course... you are a coward.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/29/09 11:06 AM:
>>> None, I need you to support your claim.
>>>
>> You snipped the quotes from Steve, you dishonest twerp.
>
> I snipped everything form your post that didn't support your claim,
> yes. I see you're left with personal insults in lieu of actual support
> for your claim. I can't say that I'm surprised.
You asked me to support the idea Steve said something.
I quoted him saying it... not just quoting others saying he said so, which
is the best "evidence" you and your group ever find against me.
And you snipped and ran. At this point, why even show you support when you
are just going to run and not even try to offer a counter.
Face it, if you really thought the quotes did not support my comment, you
would not have just run, scared. You did.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chance Furlong
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Steve Carroll stated in post
> ce26d103-3a10-4fa6...@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com on 8/29/09
> 10:14 AM:
>
> > 1 - that you have falsely alleged I have or had a "girlfriend."
>
> Ah, you now claim to have had a girlfriend. But you also claim to have a
> wife, mail order perhaps?
And how do you know about mail order wives? Is that how you got yours?
Chance Furlong
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Steve Carroll stated in post
> cb6a09c6-6f32-4c85...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com on 8/29/09
> 10:03 AM:
>
> >> I didn't track you down.
> >>
> >> BULLSHIT! You even stalked his health history.
> >
> > I didn't "stalk" anything.
>
> Hey, Steve, you are the one who claimed to "hunt" me, remember, you
> called me a troll and said you were the "troll hunter." You bragged about
> stalking me. You repeatedly pull up ancient quotes from health support
> forums to further your trolling. You have recently been obsessing over my
> personal data.
Why would anyone want to hubt you? You are too small to be the trouble
> > A person named "Snit" put things into the public record on usenet. The fact
> > is, I don't know, and neither do you, that what this "Snit" person posted
> > regarding his "health history" was even true.
>
> Ah, so you claim that the information you dug up as you stalked me is not
> something you trust. Oh well. Does not change the fact you stalked me to
> find out this information.
Again, why would anyone want to stalk you?
ed
> Sandman stated in post mr-31B16D.20045629082...@News.Individual.NET on
i see you say the og pdf's are fully verifiable, but make no claims
about the one's on sandman's site- straight up, are the accusations
that you forged those true?
Snit
d0b70cb0-9d37-4c92...@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com on 8/29/09
12:41 PM:
Clearly not. There are many falsehoods in the accusations.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
on 8/29/09 12:39 PM:
> In article <C6BEBB19.44A84%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve Carroll stated in post
>> cb6a09c6-6f32-4c85...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com on 8/29/09
>> 10:03 AM:
>>
>>>> I didn't track you down.
>>>>
>>>> BULLSHIT! You even stalked his health history.
>>>
>>> I didn't "stalk" anything.
>>
>> Hey, Steve, you are the one who claimed to "hunt" me, remember, you
>> called me a troll and said you were the "troll hunter." You bragged about
>> stalking me. You repeatedly pull up ancient quotes from health support
>> forums to further your trolling. You have recently been obsessing over my
>> personal data.
>
> Why would anyone want to hubt you? You are too small to be the trouble
And yet Steve repeatedly told me he was doing so... heck, one of his many
nym-shifts included "trollhunter" in his email address. He also admitted:
When Steve hunts (stalks / trolls) someone, he "appears" to be trolling...
-----
A troll hunter must engage in what appears to be trolling in
order to bag the quarry.
-----
Well, yes, he does "appear" to be doing what he is - trolling. What a
shock.
And Steve admits it is no just himself, it is "we" who he hunts (stalks /
trolls) with:
-----
People didn't respond... to this or any other post where we
troll hunt you... and that's how it's supposed to work.
-----
And Steve claimed to have hunted me down (successfully stalked me):
-----
It's a sign you have been bagged and are now a mounted
trophy. Trolls are so much more fun to play with than other
mounted trophies:)
-----
Steve takes pride in how he and his group (his "we") have hunted / stalked
me and gotten my information as a "mounted trophy".
Now he is - again - using that information to threaten me... in this case to
take his BS to my place of employment (again).
>>> A person named "Snit" put things into the public record on usenet. The fact
>>> is, I don't know, and neither do you, that what this "Snit" person posted
>>> regarding his "health history" was even true.
>>
>> Ah, so you claim that the information you dug up as you stalked me is not
>> something you trust. Oh well. Does not change the fact you stalked me to
>> find out this information.
>
> Again, why would anyone want to stalk you?
He has no life? Ask him... he is the one who bragged about about hunting
"trolls" as he called me one.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]